Re: MD quality-man made or natural?

From: phyllis bergiel (neilfl@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 05:14:59 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Structuralism in Pirsig"

    August:

    See J.P. Sartre and the crag from the view of the farmer, developer and
    hiker. It's phenomenology - but this is a SOM distinction.

    MOQ quality requires both man (or a consciousness at the level you describe)
    and nature - the event of the two meeting.

    Phyllis

    > Hi Nic, in response to what you said on MOQ:
    > > On the other hand if Iook at a tree or a
    > > seascape the quality is always absolute , the sea is
    > > always perfect sea and trees are always perfect
    > > trees . More accurately to natural things quality
    > > does not apply , they are perfectly what they are
    > > and could not be anything else .
    >
    > I try to look at quality as having a purpose; that
    > purpose grades a level of quality and is also
    > determined by a subjective quality. For an example if
    > I was camping in the woods and I needed a fire because
    > daylight was fading. I need a fire for warmth
    > (quality) and light (quality). When I look for wood
    > I'm going to want dry twigs, medium sticks, and logs
    > that are dry and dead because that is what the
    > particular purpose of the wood that I am seeking
    > requires(quality). If I wanted a tree to make a canoe
    > out of it then I would look for other qualities; the
    > definition of a perfect tree for the purpose would
    > change. Thoughts?
    >
    > -August
    >
    > --- nic nott <gnicgnostic@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    > > As I understand it quality is being placed as a
    > > fundamental or the fundamental basis of perception .
    > > The definition of this quality being provided in the
    > > story of the essay . This definition seems
    > > profoundly tied up with human concious constructions
    > > only . For instance I can read a book or watch a
    > > film and I mentally grade them with levels of
    > > quality . On the other hand if Iook at a tree or a
    > > seascape the quality is always absolute , the sea is
    > > always perfect sea and trees are always perfect
    > > trees . More accurately to natural things quality
    > > does not apply , they are perfectly what they are
    > > and could not be anything else .
    > > My question then is does this quality only apply
    > > to the perception of conciously constructed things ?
    > > I feel that quality is only reduced through the
    > > filters of perception , the perfectly enlightened
    > > being would see the perfection in any essay and
    > > equally always write the perfect essay . Quality is
    > > always perfect and so does not really exist .
    > > I welcome any enlightenment in this matter.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > ---------------------------------
    > > Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
    > >
    >
    >
    > __________________________________
    > Do you Yahoo!?
    > Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    > http://calendar.yahoo.com
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 05:09:47 BST